Re: measuring systems (was: Selenites)

Tom Wier wrote:
>
> Carlos Thompson wrote:
[snipped]
> (I frankly don't understand the argument that keeping the names would cause
> confusion;  context will always tell you that, almost without exception, I'm sure)
Why keep the same names? If you are going to change the definitions of
all
the units you might as well rename them.

It would cause confusion. Think of going to the supermarket
to buy some flour. All the flour bags on the shelf are labelled 1 pound,
but some would be 453 g and some 500g...

You need a 1 inch long screw by the old measurements. You go ask for it
at the store and get one which is 1 inch long by the new.

You buy a new car which is uses new miles an hour instead of old. You
think your going under the speed limit, but the police book you for
speeding...

Unless the constantly labelled them "new", eg. 1 new inch, 50 new miles,
etc., it would cause terrible confusion. And people would sooner or
later
drop the word new, and then confusion would result anyway.

The only solution is to call the new measurements by the new names, but
by that point there is no reason not to adopt metric system.

Simon Kissane
> =======================================================
> Tom Wier <artabanos@...>
> ICQ#: 4315704   AIM: Deuterotom
> Website: <http://www.angelfire.com/tx/eclectorium/>
> "Cogito ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero."
>
> We look at [the Tao], and do not see it;
>   Its name is the Invisible.
>                  - Lao Tsu, _Tao Te Ching_
>
> Nature is wont to hide herself.
>                  - Herakleitos
> ========================================================